On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:07:22 PM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On 3/2/2022 12:58 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:11:34 PM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/2/2022 2:41 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:28:48 AM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:00 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:17:43 AM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/1/2022 1:59 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:14:31 PM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> But before we can assess whether something has a consistent description >>>> we need to specify the description precisely. With a vague description we >>>> may be missing an inconsistency lurking somewhere in it or there may >>>> appear >>>> to be an inconsistency that is not really there. For example, if we try to >>>> describe a quantum object in terms of classical physics the description >>>> will not be precise enough and the assumptions inherent in those terms >>>> will >>>> be contradictory. The ideal description would reveal the complete >>>> structure >>>> of the object down to empty sets but we can't physically probe objects >>>> around us to that level. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think that's a cheat. It's not that classical physics was >>>>> imprecise. It was just wrong. QM and Newtonian mechanics even have >>>>> different ontologies. If you're wrong about the subject matter no amount >>>>> of logic will correct that. Logic only explicates what is implicit in >>>>> the >>>>> premises. It's a cheat to appeal to an ideal description when you have >>>>> no >>>>> way of producing such a description or knowing if you have achieved it >>>>> or >>>>> even knowing whether one exists . >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not a cheat, it's a complete mathematical description. Every >>>> mathematical structure can be ultimately described as a pure set. >>>> Classical >>>> physics and quantum physics have not been described as pure sets and so >>>> they are not complete mathematical descriptions. The fact that it is not >>>> feasible for us to achieve such a description of physical structures >>>> doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. >>>> >>>> >>>> And the fact that you can form a sentence using the word doesn't mean >>>> it exists either. >>>> >>> >>> Which word? >>> >>> >>> "Complete" mathematical description. >>> >> >> I said it because according to set theory every mathematical structure >> can be reduced to a pure set. So a pure set would be a complete >> mathematical description of any object. It basically means that an object >> is analyzed down to its smallest parts (empty sets). This internal >> structure of the object also establishes all the object's relations to all >> other objects, including for example the relation of "insurability" between >> a car and insurance providers. >> >> >> Which means you are assuming the world is a mathematical structure. In >> other words begging the question. >> > > Yeah, I am assuming that things constitute collections - that's what a > mathematical structure is. What other kind of structure can there be? > > > Don't you see that "things" and "collections" are concepts we impose on > the world. Didn't you notice when the whole ontology of the world shifted > from particles to fields? No? Did you see metphysicians rushing to revise > their world views? > And the concept of "collections" obviously corresponds to the world. After all, how could it be otherwise? If there are two somethings they automatically constitute a collection of two somethings. Particles or fields, whatever - they have mathematical descriptions and mathematical descriptions are in principle reducible to pure sets. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e9507a7-0f6d-4370-94fc-510ee143cff2n%40googlegroups.com.
